Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Articoli

No. 53 (2021)

Analytic attitude ‒ focus or embodiment? Subtle communications in the transference/countertransference relationship

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3280/jun1-2021oa12320
Submitted
luglio 27, 2021
Published
2021-07-30

Abstract

The paper considers a “befallment” that occurred in the course of analysis at a time when the focus of work was too much at a conscious level, dissociated from the patient’s embodied and visceral depths. A rigidly held attitude of focal attention is considered as potentially a defence against embodied experiences of overwhelm and vulnerability that may haunt shadowy realms which remain unlit by the narrow beam of conscious awareness. Rather as a dream drifts in from the unconscious, an enactment by the analyst brought neglected aspects of the transference and countertransference relationship into the room. Later, the patient’s own dreaming mind offered images that suggested an underlying dynamic. These subtle communications, alongside the patient’s attitude toward the analyst’s lapse, are considered as factors in the achievement of greater embodied integration. The analyst’s difficulty in arriving at a formulation of such events is discussed, along with the necessity of holding such “befallments” in mind over long periods of time before any explanation can be adumbrated.

References

  1. Carvalho R. (2013). “A vindication of Jung’s unconscious: Jung, Bion and Matte Blanco”. In: Cavalli A., Hawkins L. and Stevens M., eds., Transformation: Jung’s legacy and clinical work today. London: Karnac Books.
  2. Cavalli A. (2014). Gripping, holding, containment: reflections on a survival reflex and the development of a capacity to separate. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 59, 4, 549-566. DOI: 10.1111/1468-5922.12101.
  3. Field N. (1989). The embodied countertransference. British Journal of Psychotherapy 5, 512-522.
  4. Godsil G. (2018). Residues in the analyst of the patient’s symbiotic connection at a somatic level: unrepresented states in the patient and analyst. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 63, 1, 6-25. DOI: 10.1111/1468-5922.12377.
  5. Greenberg J.T., Mitchell S.A. (1983). Object Relations in Psychoanalytic Theory. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press (trad. it. Le relazioni oggettuali nella teoria psicoanalitica. Bologna: il Mulino, 1986).
  6. Kipling R. (1902). Just So Stories. London: Macmillan & Co.
  7. Lombardi R. (2017). Body-Mind Dissociation in Psychoanalysis. Development After Bion. London: Routledge.
  8. McGilchrist I. (2009). The Master and his Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.
  9. Ogden Th. (2008). Rediscovering Psychoanalysis: Thinking and Dreaming, Learning and Forgetting. New Library of Psychoanalysis. London: Routledge.
  10. Plato (380 BC/2007). The Republic (Penguin Classics). London: W. W. Norton & Co.
  11. Schachtel E.G. (1969). On attention, selective inattention and experience: an inquiry into attention as an attitude. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 33, 2, 65-91.
  12. Stern D. (1989). The analyst’s unformulated experience of the patient. Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 25, 1-33. DOI: 10.1080/00107530.1989.10746279.
  13. Wolf S. (2018). “Routine is a blind alley” (C.G. Jung): on the similarities between artisticcreative and psychoanalytic work. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 63, 5, 577-598. DOI: 10.1111/1468-5922.12446.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...